3 ms·

> Opportunity is abound, you just have to take the appropriate actions to seize it. It sounds more like you're saying "you just have to luck into having parent

> Opportunity is abound, you just have to take the appropriate actions to seize it. It sounds more like you're saying "you just have to luck into having parents who understand this." > Conversely, if you're born into a domestic culture that sets you up for (economic) failure, it's no one's job to intervene. That's terribly cruel and not a way one should structure a just society. And, indeed, bringing the conversation around to the beginning: this is among the reasons we have a public education system in the first place, to attempt to minimize that inherent unfairness. Because sometimes (as you've now observed) parents are wrong, and we have a valid civic interest in a collective process to ameliorate that error and, in so doing, create a citizenry more prepared to inherit the burden of co-governing the country (and, eventually, governing it exclusively when their parents are retired and gone). "What do we do when the parents are just plug-stupid and everyone knows it" is one of the oldest questions in centralized education, and we have multiple overlapping approaches to addressing it (including, of course, the right to pull a child out of school and shoulder the burden of educating them oneself, for good or ill). Your comments regarding reservation life express an incredible ignorance of both the history of reservations and their modern-day structure, and I'm completely disinterested in further conversation with you on that topic. Suffice to say you just don't get it. It would be a useful avenue of study for you to reframe your overall attitude on the inherent virtue of the system you were born (lucked) into.

thegrimmest 4y ago
> parents are wrong This whole premise implies that you know what's "right" and "wrong" better than other people. I find it fundamentally abhorrent to impose by beliefs on others in this manner. That is the whole point. Economic success/mobility is only one outcome of many that a child rearing strategy can optimize for. What gives any of us the right to override parental decision making to optimize for this outcome above others? Regarding reservations, I've not seen any factual refutation of any of the points that I made - namely that most of them are fundamentally economically unsustainable no matter how we feel about it. My life experience supports my worldview - I was born into poverty to immigrants who value education and achievement, and am now quite comfortable. This happens all the time.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Societies have collective understandings of what is right and wrong. It is possible for individual parents to be incorrect about those concepts. Our society reserves the authority to deprive parents of access to their children in only extreme cases of danger... But we reserve that authority, yes, because societies have a concept of what is right and wrong. If you can agree it would be morally abhorrent for a society to stand by idly while a parent sets their own child on fire or starves them to death, you can agree that there is such a thing as non-fundamentally-abhorrent imposition of beliefs upon others about morality and their own children. To be clear, the authority to remove a child from parental care is exercised with extreme reservation and would be inappropriate to do so merely if parents are teaching their children "wrong" things. But in the larger question of teaching: my goodness, how do you think we teach people to be good citizens without teaching them at least something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" It's nonsense to imagine that's a parent-only responsibility. Of course it's a shared responsibility between parents and everyone else in the child's environment; kids aren't raised in a vacuum, and the position "schools have no business teaching right from wrong" is unimplementable nonsense (mostly dreamt up by people who wish they didn't have to be part of a larger society). Rather, it is parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process so that their children are taught what the parents believe is right (but of course, that introduces the challenge that not everyone will agree, so it's good we have processes in place for that). > My life experience supports my worldview Yes, I have no doubt that the fact you got extremely lucky supports your worldview. That tends to be how that works. The larger trends look more like https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ...
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    The whole point of individual liberty is to minimize the amount of authority our society reserves, and the what it dictates/moralizes to individuals; to decentralize power/authority as much as possible, and let people interact without intervention as long as they're nonviolent and non-fraudulent. > we teach people to be good citizens There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. > something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" The whole point is that in a truly free society, this "something" is the strict minimum required for peaceful coexistence. Basically true crime and property law. These are morally justified in defence of fundamental liberty. Everything else should be out of the scope of government/society's authority. Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. If you want to raise your kid in a forest school, who is anyone else to stop you? What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? > parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? > The larger trends look more like Your article doesn't address my point about domestic culture.

thegrimmest 4y ago

> parents are wrong This whole premise implies that you know what's "right" and "wrong" better than other people. I find it fundamentally abhorrent to impose by beliefs on others in this manner. That is the whole point. Economic success/mobility is only one outcome of many that a child rearing strategy can optimize for. What gives any of us the right to override parental decision making to optimize for this outcome above others? Regarding reservations, I've not seen any factual refutation of any of the points that I made - namely that most of them are fundamentally economically unsustainable no matter how we feel about it. My life experience supports my worldview - I was born into poverty to immigrants who value education and achievement, and am now quite comfortable. This happens all the time.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Societies have collective understandings of what is right and wrong. It is possible for individual parents to be incorrect about those concepts. Our society reserves the authority to deprive parents of access to their children in only extreme cases of danger... But we reserve that authority, yes, because societies have a concept of what is right and wrong. If you can agree it would be morally abhorrent for a society to stand by idly while a parent sets their own child on fire or starves them to death, you can agree that there is such a thing as non-fundamentally-abhorrent imposition of beliefs upon others about morality and their own children. To be clear, the authority to remove a child from parental care is exercised with extreme reservation and would be inappropriate to do so merely if parents are teaching their children "wrong" things. But in the larger question of teaching: my goodness, how do you think we teach people to be good citizens without teaching them at least something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" It's nonsense to imagine that's a parent-only responsibility. Of course it's a shared responsibility between parents and everyone else in the child's environment; kids aren't raised in a vacuum, and the position "schools have no business teaching right from wrong" is unimplementable nonsense (mostly dreamt up by people who wish they didn't have to be part of a larger society). Rather, it is parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process so that their children are taught what the parents believe is right (but of course, that introduces the challenge that not everyone will agree, so it's good we have processes in place for that). > My life experience supports my worldview Yes, I have no doubt that the fact you got extremely lucky supports your worldview. That tends to be how that works. The larger trends look more like https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ...
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  The whole point of individual liberty is to minimize the amount of authority our society reserves, and the what it dictates/moralizes to individuals; to decentralize power/authority as much as possible, and let people interact without intervention as long as they're nonviolent and non-fraudulent. > we teach people to be good citizens There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. > something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" The whole point is that in a truly free society, this "something" is the strict minimum required for peaceful coexistence. Basically true crime and property law. These are morally justified in defence of fundamental liberty. Everything else should be out of the scope of government/society's authority. Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. If you want to raise your kid in a forest school, who is anyone else to stop you? What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? > parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? > The larger trends look more like Your article doesn't address my point about domestic culture.